Calling all Royal Navy Tribal-class fans

[MagisterMan]

Hi everoyne!
I got a bit confused with the draft marks on the Tribals.

1. Was there a gap of some kind between the numbers?
2. What where the highest and the lowest numbers then? There were several pictures showing them as XVIII - III, but I'm not sure whether it's the same in this picture of HMS Eskimo as the numbers look different to me.
3. From what number was the mark painted white to be better recognised on the lower part of the hull?

Best regards,
Mikhail

[MartinJQuinn]

I have a lot pf photos of the build, where is a good place to post them?

Under the picture post forum.

If you are still building her: Works in Progress
If you've completed her: Completed Models

Follow the directions for uploading your pictures to the gallery. PM me if you have questions.

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

Hi everoyne!
I got a bit confused with the draft marks on the Tribals.

1. Was there a gap of some kind between the numbers?
2. What where the highest and the lowest numbers then? There were several pictures showing them as XVIII - III, but I'm not sure whether it's the same in this picture of HMS Eskimo as the numbers look different to me.
3. From what number was the mark painted white to be better recognised on the lower part of the hull?

Best regards,
Mikhail

Hi Mikhail,

The draft marks are measured from the bottom of the bow and upwards. So the lowest mark -III- is three feet from the bottom, the upper mark -XVIII- is 18 feet from the bottom.
The range is normally III - XVIII for all Tribals. I include here the bow of Warramunga, one of the Australian Tribals. There shouldn't be any difference between the Tribals in this respect.

WARRAMUNGA as fitted%2C June 43.jpg (41.48 KiB) Viewed 17398 times

The marks are welded onto the hull in relief plate. After painting of the ship, usually the letters are painted over in white on the black boot topping and below on the red antifouling. Above the waterline it depends on the colours: on a dark hull white is used, on a light hull black. With dark and light camo this may even switch at the colour demarcation. So not from a specific number, but depending on the background paint colour.

When the paint of a ship has been touched up, then the white/black to the markings are not always re-applied. This must be the case with the picture you included.

[dick]

1. The intervals between draught marks were one foot.

2. I am fairly sure that all British Tribals started off with marks from III to XIV. Various photos and the two Tribal �As Fitteds� I have show this � see attached example and �As Fitted� for Ashanti. As the war progressed draught marks began to be painted ever higher on the hull reaching forecastle deck level on some as early as 1942. You need to check ship by ship for the time you are interested in as there were considerable variations over time. Even within a few months of your photo of Eskimo two higher draught marks had been added to hers.

11 Zulu pre war XIV.JPG (10.56 KiB) Viewed 17379 times

13 Sikh 1942 Malta.jpg (10.88 KiB) Viewed 17379 times

3. The white painting for the lower hull would begin wherever the boot topping began. The top edge of the boot topping was just above XIII pre-war war but varied a bit ship to ship during the war with some boot toppings becoming wider and so higher and others going lower when overpainted by camouflage schemes - compare for example the difference between the position of the of the boot-topping on Zulu and its overpainting on Tartar. Again check ship by ship at the time you are interested in. (You could also have light/white marks above the boot topping depending on the paint scheme and individual shipyard practice.)

Whatever her As Fitteds may show, this is Warramunga in 1943:

[Brett Morrow]

As Dick pointed out it is totally dependent on the subject and the time period.
Whilst the lower number of the bow draft gauge began at III the upper mark varied.
Australian tribal bow gauge finished at XX, but it changed dependent on period, late 45 into 46 it was XXI and on occasions XXII.
Bataan`s gauge was III to XVIII on launch but by commission it was XX.
The tribal stern gauge over the prop shaft struts began at X.
Like all marine paint it was subject to weathering and water friction and wore off as per the initial image.

[dick]

Underlining how things varied and the need to check things ship by ship, I have this photo of the draught marks on Somali in May 1940 showing that:

1. Her draught marks were simply painted directly onto the hull, not metal numerals welded onto the hull and then painted.

2. The lowest number (then at least) was V not III.

However those on Haida appear to have been the welded on type (parts of which have fallen off over the years).

[Admhawk]

Excellent info Dick!

[Guest]

Thanks for your replies, that's really a kind of info which is useful to me.
The pictures are also great. Was this a common practice for Royal Navy or just Tribals feature to use painted metal numerals on the hull?

Now one extra question: does anybody know of what did AA armament of HMS Eskimo during escorting PQ-18 in 1942 consist?
http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono ... Eskimo.htm - It is simply said that " 20mm Oerlikon weapons were added to improve Close Range aircraft defence", but no numbers or positions are mentioned. So help would be really appreciated

[Admhawk]

Thanks for your replies, that's really a kind of info which is useful to me.
The pictures are also great. Was this a common practice for Royal Navy or just Tribals feature to use painted metal numerals on the hull?

Yes, many Navies weld the numbers on. However, common doesn't mean absolutely every time.
Modern Navies still weld numbers on. An interesting example is the USN Arleigh Burke class. The Stern Numbers are welded, but the Bow numbers are not.

I've never been able to figure out why someone would paint the depth numbers all the way to deck level. The only thing I can think of is a Sailor who either didn't understand instructions or didn't care. One other possibility might be easy reference during an inclination test, where they put weights on board to make the ship tilt sideways to determine if the stability is correct.

I suspect variations between ships might be due to refits where the overall tonnage of the ship changes due to added equipment. This would change the waterline.

[Brett Morrow]

A good question concerning draft gauge extension Darren, another possibility could have been to gauge settlement depth after a torpedo hit.
Images of Canadians late war show the depth gauge at launch extended the full height of hull.

As to the question of Eskimo close range weapons fit in Sept 42 and convoy PQ18, it would appear that the 20mm oerlikons referred to were single MK II fitted in the flagdeck wings, replacing the twin lewis.
At that time her quad Vickers appear to still have been in place on the midship gun platform.

[Admhawk]

A good question concerning draft gauge extension Darren, another possibility could have been to gauge settlement depth after a torpedo hit.
Images of Canadians late war show the depth gauge at launch extended the full height of hull.

Torpedo hit is an interesting thought.

I checked my photos and of the 8 RCN ships, 2 of them, Micmac and Nootka, had the bow draft marks up to the deck level at launch. Interestingly, they were launched in 43 and 44, the same years the other ships afloat showed the markings. Definitely a late war thing.

[dick]

I am fairly sure that I have read in some document/Fleet Order that the extra draught marks were to assist damage control but one senses that they were perhaps being a tad over-optimistic if they thought things would be salvable if the water had reached forecastle deck level!

The October 1942 edition of CB 0815B (the half yearly armament return), corrected to 30th September 1942, gives Eskimo 6 x 4.7�, 2 x 4� HA, 1 x 2 pr pom-pom 4 barrel, 2 x .5� M MG, 2 x Lewis and 4 x Oerlikon.

As Brett has highlighted, two of the Oerlikons were on the wings of the signal deck. There is a photo of Eskimo taken in July 1943 during Husky showing a third was centrally on the light AA platform between the funnels (ie between the quad 0.5�s) and a fourth right aft on the quarterdeck. I have a (private) 1942 photo taken onboard Eskimo showing that this was offset to starboard so as to avoid the centerline depth charge rail.

There is a well-known photo of Eskimo taken during PQ18 (Sept 1942). The silhouette of the angled shield of the quarterdeck Oerlikon can be discerned (the gun is aiming broadside to port). The Oerlikon on the light AA platform cannot be made out but there is a distinct gathering centrally there where it should be between the quad 0.5�s. Maybe someone has a clearer photo?

[Ady]

I'm about to order some micromaster 3D printed boats to replace the ones on my Tribal class build. Am I right in thinking the boats carried were as follows...

25ft fast motor boat
25ft motor cutter
27ft whaler
14ft sailing dinghy

Thanks in advance for any help with this matter. Ta

[TomRigg17]

Did the Tribals have any covering (corticene, semtex etc.) on their main decks?
The '350 Trumpy kit has a moulded 'walkway' from the f'c'stle break past the funnels and TT to the after superstructure either side.
Tom

[dick]

When built, all the RN Tribals had latex deck coverings specified for specific areas such as those walkways. Ship by ship these coverings varied between Semtex, Aranbee or Supertex depending upon which manufacturers' product was allocated to which ship.

[TomRigg17]

Thank you, Dick,
Looks like I'm getting the paint brush out again.
Tom

[hj1985]

I've seen no photos or other evidence that ZULU ever wore a patterned camouflage scheme. A series of photos held by the Imperial War Museum (http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/search?query=hms+zulu - ref number A6376 is probably the best) captioned as taken in the Atlantic on 17 November 1941 show the configuration clearly, including the short vertical polemast for the HF/DF aerial (the aerial itself is somewhat blurred, but there are other photos of this sort of aerial online). Despite what naval-history.net says, the weapon in the port bridge wing appears to be a single 2 pounder gun, not a 20mm Oerlikon, and the depth charge throwers are not on the quarterdeck, but have been moved down from the after shelter deck to upper deck level abreast the searchlight. Also shown are the splinter shields at the deckedge abreast the main armament and 4" HA mountings, and the RDF (radar) Type 286 aerial at the foremasthead, again not provided in the kit. Most of the additions are available in the White Ensign photoetch set (except for the splinter shields and 2 pounders) as more accurate representations than the Trumpeter versions.

Found another inaccuracy in Trumpy's 1/700 Zulu,

From the IWM photo collection, we can see that:

Splinter shields for main armament and 4'' HA mounting are semi-circular, Trumpeter got it wrong.

[tjstoneman]

Zulu's splinter shields did not extend beyond the curved overhang of the for'd and after shelter decks - however, configurations differed between ships of the class; for example, Ashanti had splinter shields fore and aft of the curved sections - eg https://modelwork.pl/topic/40745-projek ... vy-na-102/

[hj1985]

Zulu's splinter shields did not extend beyond the curved overhang of the for'd and after shelter decks - however, configurations differed between ships of the class; for example, Ashanti had splinter shields fore and aft of the curved sections - eg https://modelwork.pl/topic/40745-projek ... vy-na-102/

Thank you for the additional information.

Trumpeter's RN and RM ship qualities (released during 200x-201x) are not that good. This post does help a lot on the kit inaccuracies and provides a great inspiration, thank you everyone.

[whaynes]

Anybody have a photo/image/ diagram of the ammo hoists just behind the 4.7 inch Y gun on the upper deck? Thanks.
Waly Haynes